Sebastian notified us of a possible case of true Reasoned DiscourseTM a couple of days ago.
It turns out it was a false alarm. I posted one comment successfully, but then I guess my arguments got too hard for them to rebut so they stopped posting them.
First, in response to this post I successfully got a comment in and “stopgunviolence” replied to it…but my rebuttal has gone ignored for over 24 hours now and another comment was posted, leading me to believe that mine’s not going to be. For posterity’s sake, here’s what I submitted that didn’t make the cut:
97% of DC’s crime guns are trafficked in illegally from outside states
Well, they would have to be, now wouldn’t they? Don’t see many gun shops in DC.
What you fail to explain is if “weak gun laws” are the problem, why is the rate of violent crime so much higher in DC than in the places that actually have those weak gun laws?
According to very statistics cited by the DC city government (ironically, used in support of the handgun ban), the percentage of homicides perpetrated with handguns has actually significantly increased since their handgun ban went into effect. How can this be? I thought tough gun laws would prevent gun crimes. It’s almost like the criminals ignore the laws or something.
So, to summarize your answer: you aren’t doing anything to reduce the violence in DC. You are simply trying very hard to rationalize instituting DC’s spectacularly unsuccessful draconian restrictions everywhere else in the country.
Oh…as far as the recent incident in Virginia Beach: based upon my past experiences with the press and even with Police “experts” identifying firearms, I have serious reservations about the accuracy of the firearms reportedly used in that incident (assuming that we’re talking about the same one).
But, since you brought up Virginia Beach: Let’s see…the latest stats I could find in a quick internet search was for 2003.
Rate per 100k: 5.46
Violent Crimes: 928
Rate per 100k: 211.17
Rate per 100k: 44.65
Violent Crimes: 9061
Rate per 100k: 1624.94
Wow. Relatively comparable populations, but about nine times more likely to be murdered and about eight times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in DC.
I think I’ll take our lax gun laws and hot and cold running “assault weapons” over your gun free utopia, thank you very much.
I guess doing things like, you know, actually applying logic and providing evidence to support my argument was a bit too much for them to handle.
My initial comment to two other entries never made the cut. Perhaps he’d had enough of me already by then? Luckily, I saved them “just in case” as well.
In reply to this post, I commented:
You are clearly (and intentionally) misconstruing the NRA safety rules in order to score cheap and specious points.
The NRA recommendations are clearly geared towards firearms not in use for self defense or other purposes.
A firearm kept at hand for self defense is being used. Therefore, the recommendation to keep it unloaded is moot.
Clearly, a firearm kept at hand for self defense is not being “stored”
Your contention that a gun is not “in use” when the owner is asleep is “false on its face” relies upon a very strict interpretation of “in use”, of course. Considering that your agenda is quite clear, it is evident that your definition of “in use” and mine are going to necessarily vary.
You also studiously ignore the basic fact that failing to follow NRA recommendations does not and cannot result in criminal penalties. Therefore, there is much less requirement for those recommendations to be couched in legal phraseology and to cover every possible eventuality.
DC law, on the other hand, DOES prescribe criminal penalties for failing to comply. Laws that are unclear or ambiguous have a direct impact on citizen’s lives.
The interesting thing is that DC’s laws are VERY clear and unambiguous.
As I stated before, the NRA recommendations that you meretriciously misconstrue clearly indicate that they pertain to firearms that are not “in use” (for self defense or any other legal purpose) and are being “stored.”
The DC laws make no such distinction and make no allowances for making a firearm ready and loading it, even in the face of imminent death.
In other words, your contention that the “non-functional firearms” argument is a red herring is…well…a red herring.
And, in response to this post, I commented:
But these are pieces of information that law enforcement would certainly want to review and follow up on
In what way?
Should the police interview every romantic interest of everyone who ever attempts to purchase a firearm?
How many unsubstantiated allegations should be the cutoff for disqualification?
One? Five? Twenty?
You yourself admit that the perpetrator of this crime would have passed the background check. Short of making anyone who has ever been accused of “domestic abuse” and being “demented” (as you, yourself admit should “not automatically disqualify someone from owning a gun”) a prohibited person; what, if any, of your proposed legislation would have prevented this crime?
It sure didn’t take long for Mike et. al. to figure out that Reasoned Discourse is a lot harder than it looks. It’s much more difficult to have to support your contentions in the face of facts, logic and evidence than it is to just spout meaningless platitudes and unsupported claims unchallenged.
It’s especially notable that, through the miracle of comment moderation (sometimes known as “censorship”), they can pick and choose which comments they will allow, thus lending the impression that they are engaging in debate while, in point of fact, studiously avoiding it.
Can you say “disingenuous?” Sure you can.